Where’s The “Popular Vote” Thread?

[IUCrazy2]

As the Stanford article discusses the population center excuse holds no water, and here and now, my guy is in office after a blowout election.

You want the rules to stay status quo because you feel that in the future, you will still be able to maintain power with elections decided with the “loser” actually winning with 10,000,000 less votes.

No, I refer you to the method that Marvin wants to do above (that I still am not on board with). The Democrats have large numbers of people who vote for them generally jammed into certain areas that are not reflective of life across the country. The popular vote gives places like LA, New York, and Chicago too much political power. Large cities like that are a world unto their own that isn't reflective of how most of the rest of the country lives.

That could/would lead to decisions being made that cater to them at the detriment of the rest of us.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Where in the Constitution is a multi state compact awarding votes by popular vote listed?

This is actually a very interesting question, but I'll have to wait until I get home to type that much.

 

[DANC]

Where in the Constitution is a multi state compact awarding votes by popular vote listed?

I don't know. Where in the Constitution is there a right to privacy?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I don't know. Where in the Constitution is there a right to privacy?

Exactly. But I am not an originalist. So if this court admits texturally the compact is illegal, great. But I doubt they will do that and will claim some hidden meaning.

Where I suspect the compact fails is in state constitutions. States may well spell out how to award delegates, and this compact cannot circumvent those imo.

There is a judge hearing a 2nd Amendment case who has decided judges are I'll equipped to determine what the Founder's mean. So he has hired a professional historian to write up a thesis on what gun control was/was not acceptable at the time the Constitution was signed. I think this will prove interesting as it works its way through the system.

 

[Bowlmania]

The popular vote gives places like LA, New York, and Chicago too much political power. Large cities like that are a world unto their own that isn't reflective of how most of the rest of the country lives.

That argument has little merit. That's what state and local elections (city council, mayor, etc.) are for - - to elect the candidates whom you believe will best represent you on local issues.

And if you think everyone in large population centers like New York, LA, Miami-Dade, etc. is ideologically on the same page, you're mistaken.

 

[IUCrazy2]

That argument has little merit. That's what state and local elections (city council, mayor, etc.) are for - - to elect the candidates whom you believe will best represent you on local issues.

And if you think everyone in large population centers like New York, LA, Miami-Dade, etc. is ideologically on the same page, you're mistaken.

Yeah, it isn't like the federal government forks out money to the states to fund its pet projects or anything....

You want one simple example? California and their push to electric vehicles that are not competitive with gas and diesel on things like travel distance and energy efficiency when hauling. Send that kind of thinking national because the people that vote for Democrats mostly live in and around large cities.

And I know not everyone in any given area is ideologically on the same page BUT they tend to have similar experiences in their day to day lives that will make certain topics more important to them. Same with rural individuals. You would not want them making all the rules because the same is true of them.

 

[walkerman]

No, I refer you to the method that Marvin wants to do above (that I still am not on board with). The Democrats have large numbers of people who vote for them generally jammed into certain areas that are not reflective of life across the country. The popular vote gives places like LA, New York, and Chicago too much political power. Large cities like that are a world unto their own that isn't reflective of how most of the rest of the country lives.

That could/would lead to decisions being made that cater to them at the detriment of the rest of us.

Your point is well taken but not everyone living in large cities are democrats. Your "could/would lead to decisions at a detriment to the rest of us" however could also be that the reverse is true. The ten largest cities in the US have a combined population of about 25 million which represents about 8-9% of the national population. That means 90% of the voters are located in smaller cities and rural areas whose decisions would have the greater influence.

There was a time in our own state of Indiana that the rural population could control decisions that were to the detriment of Indianapolis and absolutely inhibited the development of city. It took Bill Hudnut and Dick Luger to turn that problem and when they did the city began what it has become today. It does work both ways.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Your point is well taken but not everyone living in large cities are democrats. Your "could/would lead to decisions at a detriment to the rest of us" however could also be that the reverse is true. The ten largest cities in the US have a combined population of about 25 million which represents about 8-9% of the national population. That means 90% of the voters are located in smaller cities and rural areas whose decisions would have the greater influence.

There was a time in our own state of Indiana that the rural population could control decisions that were to the detriment of Indianapolis and absolutely inhibited the development of city. It took Bill Hudnut and Dick Luger to turn that problem and when they did the city began what it has become today. It does work both ways.

I will refer you to post #46, I did end up making that point there too. The system we have is intended to force some balance. That is a good thing IMO.

 

[bawlmer]

It was a serious question. You can change it with a Constitutional amendment. It's only way.

You're welcome.

Thanks professor.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Where in the Constitution is a multi state compact awarding votes by popular vote listed?

So here's the deal. It's not 100% clear that the popular vote compact is even properly named - that is, it might not even be a compact. If it is a compact, then Congress will have to approve it for it to go into force. That seems unlikely.

However, as states have already been granted the power to determine how they assign their electoral votes, it might not truly be a compact. It might be more akin to a uniform act, like the Uniform Commercial Code, which each state can choose whether or not to enact, with no say from Congress.

As a third wrinkle, and probably the one you're worried about, SCOTUS could conceivably rule that whether or not it is a compact, it might still be unconstitutional because it serves as an end-run around the constitutional amendment process. However, to even get to that point, the court would first have to deal with very recent precedent in Texas v. Pennsylvania, in which the court denied Texas leave to file its complaint about the 2020 election on the grounds that one state has no standing to complain about how another state conducts its elections.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

So here's the deal. It's not 100% clear that the popular vote compact is even properly named - that is, it might not even be a compact. If it is a compact, then Congress will have to approve it for it to go into force. That seems unlikely.

However, as states have already been granted the power to determine how they assign their electoral votes, it might not truly be a compact. It might be more akin to a uniform act, like the Uniform Commercial Code, which each state can choose whether or not to enact, with no say from Congress.

As a third wrinkle, and probably the one you're worried about, SCOTUS could conceivably rule that whether or not it is a compact, it might still be unconstitutional because it serves as an end-run around the constitutional amendment process. However, to even get to that point, the court would first have to deal with very recent precedent in Texas v. Pennsylvania, in which the court denied Texas leave to file its complaint about the 2020 election on the grounds that one state has no standing to complain about how another state conducts its elections.

Do you know the 2001 Toledo grad (Rozzi) who is now representing the guy accused of the Delphi murders?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Do you know the 2001 Toledo grad (Rozzi) who is now representing the guy accused of the Delphi murders?

No. Way before my time.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

So here's the deal. It's not 100% clear that the popular vote compact is even properly named - that is, it might not even be a compact. If it is a compact, then Congress will have to approve it for it to go into force. That seems unlikely.

However, as states have already been granted the power to determine how they assign their electoral votes, it might not truly be a compact. It might be more akin to a uniform act, like the Uniform Commercial Code, which each state can choose whether or not to enact, with no say from Congress.

As a third wrinkle, and probably the one you're worried about, SCOTUS could conceivably rule that whether or not it is a compact, it might still be unconstitutional because it serves as an end-run around the constitutional amendment process. However, to even get to that point, the court would first have to deal with very recent precedent in Texas v. Pennsylvania, in which the court denied Texas leave to file its complaint about the 2020 election on the grounds that one state has no standing to complain about how another state conducts its elections.

And of course we have the upcoming case that legislative branches can do anything without concern of state constitutions or courts. If that is a yes, the compact seems definitely constitutional.

I have some squeamishness about the compact. I would prefer other solutions. But I am not sure I see constitutional restrictions.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

And of course we have the upcoming case that legislative branches can do anything without concern of state constitutions or courts. If that is a yes, the compact seems definitely constitutional.

I have some squeamishness about the compact. I would prefer other solutions. But I am not sure I see constitutional restrictions.

Put a gun to my head and demand an answer, and I will say it is constitutional. But I'm not entirely sure it should be. Seems like a loophole. But just like anything else in the Constitutional, the way to close a loophole is...amendment.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Put a gun to my head and demand an answer, and I will say it is constitutional. But I'm not entirely sure it should be. Seems like a loophole. But just like anything else in the Constitutional, the way to close a loophole is...amendment.

I agree, it seems like a loophole. Which is why I prefer the Nebraska solution.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I agree, it seems like a loophole. Which is why I prefer the Nebraska solution.

My only problem with the Nebraska model is that it further incentivizes partisan gerrymandering.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

My only problem with the Nebraska model is that it further incentivizes partisan gerrymandering.

Yep, the NY Supreme Court was right to slap down NY, but the Florida court was feckless. If that sort of thing keeps happening than the Nebraska plan can't work.

 

[Stuffshot]

No, I refer you to the method that Marvin wants to do above (that I still am not on board with). The Democrats have large numbers of people who vote for them generally jammed into certain areas that are not reflective of life across the country. The popular vote gives places like LA, New York, and Chicago too much political power. Large cities like that are a world unto their own that isn't reflective of how most of the rest of the country lives.

That could/would lead to decisions being made that cater to them at the detriment of the rest of us.

Wow. You just criticized the democratic use of political power "by large numbers of people ... generally jammed into certain areas that are not reflective of life across the country".

Do you have a serious rationale to offer in support of your opposition to majority rule?

People in less populated areas benefit directly from the population centers. Small towns have virtually no manufacturing (but they love their cars), have no chemical plants (but they use plastic), have no electronics plants (but they love their cell phones and TVs), may grow food in their rural areas (but keep their farmers profitable by selling their grain to international grain dealers for resale in Asia), have few asphalt plants (but have paved roads) and claim they dislike big city banks (while neglecting to notice that the money they borrow for their home mortgages comes from big city banks and investors).

You claimed that large cities aren't "reflective of how most of the rest of the country lives," but that's wrong -- rural areas actually do reflect life in big cities by their use of big city products like plastic grocery bags and milk cartons, cell phones, TVs, Google, Twitter, and willful participation in the world economy by selling their grain to Asia and buying Chinese cell phones, Korean televisions and Japanese cars.

Low population areas are absolutely not self-sufficient and have no right to impose their will on the majority.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

No, I refer you to the method that Marvin wants to do above (that I still am not on board with). The Democrats have large numbers of people who vote for them generally jammed into certain areas that are not reflective of life across the country. The popular vote gives places like LA, New York, and Chicago too much political power. Large cities like that are a world unto their own that isn't reflective of how most of the rest of the country lives.

That could/would lead to decisions being made that cater to them at the detriment of the rest of us.

The problem is that your argument is rooted in the idea that people should have less political power because they take up less space. Ultimately, you're arguing for the prospect that land should be the repository of at least part of the political power in this country, and I can't abide by that. I think the political power should reside solely with the people.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

Okay, but that’s exactly the argument against the electoral college. Trump actually was trying to switch up electors after he lost. That is a fact. And that is the very essence of mob rule. A coup in Myanmar or Thailand is usually by the army. In those cases, a very small minority overthrows the government.

As General Milley said, “We’re the guys with the guns.” But in Miley’s case, he was talking about protecting the US Constitution, not a wanna be Putin.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/20/trump-documents-fake-elector-plan/

The US population, in general, is not a mob. To disenfranchise millions of voters because they happen to live in a solid red or blue state is very close to mob rule. How many times do you hear people’s excuses for not voting as I live in Massachusetts, my vote doesn’t matter. Or in Wyoming as the red example. They’re right.

Everyone’s vote should count.

Okay, but that’s exactly the argument against the electoral college. Trump actually was trying to switch up electors after he lost. That is a fact. And that is the very essence of mob rule. A coup in Myanmar or Thailand is usually by the army. In those cases, a very small minority overthrows the government.

As General Milley said, “We’re the guys with the guns.” But in Miley’s case, he was talking about protecting the US Constitution, not a wanna be Putin.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/20/trump-documents-fake-elector-plan/

The US population, in general, is not a mob. To disenfranchise millions of voters because they happen to live in a solid red or blue state is very close to mob rule. How many times do you hear people’s excuses for not voting as I live in Massachusetts, my vote doesn’t matter. Or in Wyoming as the red example. They’re right.

Everyone’s vote should count.

My vote didn't count in my congressional district ever. Now that you mention it my vote has only counted in a statewide election one time in my entire life. I am not talking about never casting a winner, I am talking about elections that are decided by 100,000 or more.

 

[TomEric4756]

In some parliamentary systems, the number of members a party is given in a parliament is proportional to the popular vote percentage.

 

[TomEric4756]

I don't know. Where in the Constitution is there a right to privacy?

4th amendment… Digital privacy needs some work in the US.

 

[DANC]

4th amendment… Digital privacy needs some work in the US.

No, it says nothing about a 'right to privacy'.

 

[Stuffshot]

No, it says nothing about a 'right to privacy'.

Where does it say that the government is permitted to ban or restrict the ownership, use and/or carrying of fully automatic machine guns, short-barrelled rifles and shotguns, jet fighters, ground to air missiles and explosives?

Aren't those considered "arms" in the second amendment?

 

[DrHoops]

No, I refer you to the method that Marvin wants to do above (that I still am not on board with). The Democrats have large numbers of people who vote for them generally jammed into certain areas that are not reflective of life across the country. The popular vote gives places like LA, New York, and Chicago too much political power. Large cities like that are a world unto their own that isn't reflective of how most of the rest of the country lives.

That could/would lead to decisions being made that cater to them at the detriment of the rest of us.

What reflects on “life around the country”? According to whom? Aren’t people in large cities part of “life around the country?” Why must people you say are “jammed” into a certain area have less influence than a rancher in Wyoming. People are free to move, just like rural populations are able to move.

I’d argue it’s the other way around. People who have little to no life experience outside their homogeneous population shouldn’t be the policy drivers over educated, more diverse, sophisticated, people who tend to move to larger cities. You really think someone who has absolutely no grasp on facts can efficiently govern?

Why must we cater to Billy Bob in Ridgely, TN be more influential than lawyers in major cities? The idea of “Real America” is so silly and nonsensical, it’s become absurd. Yeah, let’s go to a diner in west Nebraska and find out what these know nothings’ opinions on science are!

Right now the idiots you see at Trump rallies make decisions that cater to them. Is this rest what you want?

 

[TommyCracker]

What reflects on “life around the country”? According to whom? Aren’t people in large cities part of “life around the country?” Why must people you say are “jammed” into a certain area have less influence than a rancher in Wyoming. People are free to move, just like rural populations are able to move.

I’d argue it’s the other way around. People who have little to no life experience outside their homogeneous population shouldn’t be the policy drivers over educated, more diverse, sophisticated, people who tend to move to larger cities. You really think someone who has absolutely no grasp on facts can efficiently govern?

Why must we cater to Billy Bob in Ridgely, TN be more influential than lawyers in major cities? The idea of “Real America” is so silly and nonsensical, it’s become absurd. Yeah, let’s go to a diner in west Nebraska and find out what these know nothings’ opinions on science are!

Right now the idiots you see at Trump rallies make decisions that cater to them. Is this rest what you want?

There are local and statewide governance that everyone has more influence over.

The federal level is supposed to be of the people. Everyone regardless where they live.

As much as it seems that rural republicans are terrified of California, it's been California and it's massive tax base that has basically covered for everyone else. If any state has the means to form their own country, it's California. It's the epicenter and leader of the modern world the last two decades.

Besides that the difference between so called city folk and rural folk is minimum when it comes down to it. We're just people.

My source on that is me. I grew up in Bedford then after college moved to Minneapolis because, that's where the money was. If I miss my Bedford roots there are a billion 'rural' spots to go to and there is massive farm land just 20 minutes outside the city.

I'd almost guarantee that more small town kids move to the cities than city kids move to the rural areas.

This argument is like saying that Ellettsville should have more of a say than Bloomington just because Bloomington is more densely populated (unless you're hinting at darker themes that's been spoonfed via Fox news of 'replacement theory' and an 'evangelical white culture crisis'...which is nonsense.

The biggest majority of republicans in Minnesota live in the twin cities area including St. Cloud and Rochester.

This belief that all cities are this homogeneous liberal utopia is simply incorrect.

Good lord the city suburbs are the headquarters of My Pillow. The 6th district (the northwest suburbs to St. Cloud) was Michelle Bachman's rule.

I'd guess the majority of current republican thought leaders....live in cities.

Here's the real map of the US.

 

[IUCrazy2]

What reflects on “life around the country”? According to whom? Aren’t people in large cities part of “life around the country?” Why must people you say are “jammed” into a certain area have less influence than a rancher in Wyoming. People are free to move, just like rural populations are able to move.

I’d argue it’s the other way around. People who have little to no life experience outside their homogeneous population shouldn’t be the policy drivers over educated, more diverse, sophisticated, people who tend to move to larger cities. You really think someone who has absolutely no grasp on facts can efficiently govern?

Why must we cater to Billy Bob in Ridgely, TN be more influential than lawyers in major cities? The idea of “Real America” is so silly and nonsensical, it’s become absurd. Yeah, let’s go to a diner in west Nebraska and find out what these know nothings’ opinions on science are!

Right now the idiots you see at Trump rallies make decisions that cater to them. Is this rest what you want?

I would submit your entire post as Exhibit A of exactly what I am talking about.

 

[IUCrazy2]

There are local and statewide governance that everyone has more influence over.

The federal level is supposed to be of the people. Everyone regardless where they live.

As much as it seems that rural republicans are terrified of California, it's been California and it's massive tax base that has basically covered for everyone else. If any state has the means to form their own country, it's California. It's the epicenter and leader of the modern world the last two decades.

Besides that the difference between so called city folk and rural folk is minimum when it comes down to it. We're just people.

My source on that is me. I grew up in Bedford then after college moved to Minneapolis because, that's where the money was. The only difference in the people are really just accents, maybe more social pressure to stay as attractive as you can and there are more diverse cultures....but if I miss my Bedford roots there are a billion 'rural' spots to go to and there is massive farm land just 20 minutes outside the city.

I'd almost guarantee that more small town kids move to the cities than city kids move to the rural areas.

This argument is like saying that Ellettsville should have more of a say than Bloomington just because Bloomington is more densely populated.

The biggest majority of republicans in Minnesota live in the twin cities area including St. Cloud and Rochester.

This belief that all cities are this homogeneous liberal utopia is simply incorrect.

Good lord the city suburbs are the headquarters of My Pillow. The 6th district (the northwest suburbs to St. Cloud) was Michelle Bachman's rule.

I'd guess the majority of current republican thought leaders....live in cities.

Here's the real map of the US.

Exhibit B

 

[TommyCracker]

Exhibit B

Lol....the real issue is pubs can't come up with a platform that is appealing to the majority of the people.

It's pretty simple, come up with a better platform and sell it. Build consensus. You know, earn it.

Republicans can't so instead they spend their energy trying to get as little amount of people to participate.

In this case we're talking about an overwhelming imbalance between populations in cities and rural.

Something like California is larger than 26 states. LA has more people than 6 states.

We're a government of the people, not of dirt.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Lol....the real issue is pubs can't come up with a platform that is appealing to the majority of the people.

It's pretty simple, come up with a better platform and sell it. Build consensus. You know, earn it.

Republicans can't so instead they spend their energy trying to get as little amount of people to participate.

In this case we're talking about an overwhelming imbalance between populations in cities and rural.

Something like California is larger than 26 states. LA has more people than 6 states.

We're a government of the people, not of dirt.

We are a government of laws, not people.

You are proposing a tyrannical government. Good luck with that.

 

[TommyCracker]

Exhibit B

One other thing, to show you the flaws of the winner takes all electoral college system see the republican presidential primary.

Ya see Trump doesn't have to 'win' the majority because delegates are given in a winner takes all scenario.

So while you might be thinking that Trump is over and DeSantis is now the man....all Trump has to do is get as many people in the race as possible to dilute the vote, even if that group of candidates represent the 'majority', doesn't matter cause if Trump can split the majority vote he can win All the delegates. So he needs what, 25ish percent to win?

The dnc primary isn't a winner take all. If it was than Bernie is most likely the candidate in 2020 even though he represents a current minority of the party.

Meaning the winner takes all element is the real hang up in this discussion.

 

[TommyCracker]

We are a government of laws, not people.

You are proposing a tyrannical government. Good luck with that.

Actually a tyrannical government is more likely from a minority rule point of view. Again since it can't win the populous it has to force itself onto the majority.

In every kind of social system, minority rule is rarely seen as anything but tyrannical.

 

[DrHoops]

I would submit your entire post as Exhibit A of exactly what I am talking about.

Yeah, and what you’re talking about makes zero sense, as the Stanford article I linked earlier explains in depth.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

The threat to Democracy is making the popular vote the rule of law.

Actually, it's a threat to our Constitutional Republic, as the right of dissent is guaranteed. 'Democracy' has morphed into totalitarianism.

See Turkey..

One man, one vote, one time.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

I don't even need to read your post to answer. I don't trust the majority. I know the arguments, but the mob scares the hell out of me. I saw a picture today of suspect Russian collaborators tied to a pole. Those images trouble me. The mob lynch's people.

Why should the minority be able to rule over the majority? Everyone's vote should matter the same.

If someone doesn't trust you, then should that mean your vote shouldn't count as much?

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

Spoken like a true Democrat that thinks people occupying 10% of the country are capable of ruling over the other 90%

Just like a conservative that thinks 45% of the people should rule over 55% of the people

It doesn't matter where people live

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

Every vote does count. WTF are you talking about?

Not the same. If you are in a less populous state, your vote counts more

 

[IUCrazy2]

One other thing, to show you the flaws of the winner takes all electoral college system see the republican presidential primary.

Ya see Trump doesn't have to 'win' the majority because delegates are given in a winner takes all scenario.

So while you might be thinking that Trump is over and DeSantis is now the man....all Trump has to do is get as many people in the race as possible to dilute the vote, even if that group of candidates represent the 'majority', doesn't matter cause if Trump can split the majority vote he can win All the delegates. So he needs what, 25ish percent to win?

The dnc primary isn't a winner take all. If it was than Bernie is most likely the candidate in 2020 even though he represents a current minority of the party.

Meaning the winner takes all element is the real hang up in this discussion.

The majority of states are not winner takes all in the GOP primary. 20 are proportional, 9 are winner take all, and the rest are hybrids.

Indiana for instance awards 30 delegates to the overall winner of the state vote but then awards another 27 by house district. You could conceivably have the overall winner receiving 30 delegates while his opponents split the other 27.

 

[DrHoops]

I have no issue with eliminating the EC, but at the moment it falls into the unicorn spectrum.

I am sick and tired of 90% of America being ignored every 4 years. There are about 5 at play states, that is it. No one else's vote matters. They might visit one of the other states if there are money bundlers suggesting the tree can be shaken, but then it is a fly in, private event, fly out.

People think there vote doesn't matter because it doesn't. I see two ways to address that, one cannot happen.

The Popular Vote Compact is a good attempt and is getting close BUT I suspect this court would strike it down.

Exactly!

 

[Timmy Mac]

It's difficult for you to be rational when you don't know anything about history.

Unlike you, I understand history just fine. Your ilk presents alternative facts, parsed out personal commentary and revisionist history as you please to attempt to bolster your beliefs that are based in limited truths or no truth at all. It's a shame that time travel doesn't exist, a bunch of MAGA cult members could go back in time to join their brethren in the Nazi party - a party who used the same tactics.

Further, I don't care about "party" at all. I care about truth and reality - not a reality based on somebody else's delusion.